Rajasthan Court February 2002 Judgments
Kailashi and ors. Vs. Bagh Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ599; 2003WLC(Raj)UC207
Gyan Sudha Mishra, J. 1. An award of Rs. 1,59,500 (rupees one lakh fifty-nine thousand five hundred) has been passed in favour of the claimants-appellants who are the dependants of the deceased Gangaram who had died as a result of the accident caused by the vehicle bearing No. PB 11-B 6491 insured with the respondent No. 3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The appellants are aggrieved of this amount and hence filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. It is an admitted position in this matter that although the claimants have claimed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,100 (rupees two thousand one hundred), no cogent evidence was led by them in this regard and consequently his income was computed as Rs. 1,500 (rupees fifteen hundred) per month, that is, Rs. 18,000 (rupees eighteen thousand) per annum. On the established norms and principles, if 1/3rd of this amount is deducted, net income of the deceased would be Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand) per month.2. Learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.R. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR121(Raj); 2002(3)WLN401; 2002(3)WLN401
N.N. Mathur, J.1. These two appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), arise out of the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated April 27, 2001. The respondent-assessee, A. R. Enterprises Private Limited, Udaipur, is engaged in the business of drilling of tube-wells and construction activities. The respondent assessee claimed investment allowance amounting to Rs. 5,25,885 on purchase of drilling rigs, which was allowed in the original assessment passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 1985-86 by order dated December 16, 1986. However, in the absence of sufficient profit for that year, the same was carried forward and allowed to be set-off against the income of the assessment year 1987-88. The Supreme Court in a decision rendered on March 7, 1993, in CIT v. N, C. Budharaja and Co. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) , held that the investment allowance on drilling rigs is not allowable. In view of the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Chhogmal Chiranji Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR51(Raj); 2002(3)WLN564
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present batch of petitions involve identical questions of law and facts. In this background, they are decided by a common judgment. For the factual matrix, details of the case of Chhogmal Chiranji Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, are taken into consideration.2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in issuing the orders annexure 3 and annexure 5. The orders impugned have been passed against the petitioner in the background that there were certain deposits with the petitioner and he was required to deduct income-tax on the payment 'of interest on such deposits. Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), provides that as and when such tax is paid on deposits, tax is required to be deducted at source. Such deduction is waived where the recipient of interest, even after receiving the interest does not become a person, who is liable to pay tax and furnishes a Form No. 15H.3. This is the a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agarwal Transformers P. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR251(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has sought the opinion of this court on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that generator set falls within the category defined in Clause (xiii) of item (10A) of Appendix I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and as such is eligible for depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent. ?'2. The reference application pertains to the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1987-88. The respondent-assessee is a company carrying on the business of re-rolling of stainless steel pattas through hot and cold process. The asses-see claimed depreciation on generator set at the rate of 30 per cent. on the basis of item (10A) in the depreciation schedule in Appendix I. In the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the generator set is not run on wind energy as such it is not covered by it...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Wolkem (P.) Ltd. Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR350(Raj); 2002(3)WLN551; 2002(3)WLN551
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. This reference application at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed seeking direction against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, for referring the following questions of law for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding in law that the expenditure of Rs. 35,207 incurred for the purchase of T. V. set for the staff was a revenue expenditure ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the expenses of Rs. 1 lakh incurred by the assessee to get extension of mining lease was a revenue expenditure ?' 2. The respondent-assessee is a company carrying on the business of manufacturing and trading of processed lumps and powder, etc. During the assessment year 1988-89 in response to a notice under Section 143(2) the company produced accounts and other required details....
Tag this Judgment!Chhogmal Chiranji Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj35; 2002(3)WLN564
Prasad, J.1. The present batch of petitions involve identical questions of law and facts. In this background, they are decided by a common judgment. For factual matrix, details of the case of 'Chhogmal Chiranji Lal v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.' are taken into consideration.2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in issuing the order Annexure-3 and Annexure-5, the orders impugned have been passed against the petitioner in the background that there were certain deposites with the petitioner and he was required to deduct income tax on the payment of interest on such deposites. Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides that as and when such tax is paid on deposits, tax is required to be deducted at source. Such deduction is waived where recepient of interest, even after receiving the interest does not become a person, who is liable to pay tax and furnishes a form No. 15-H.3. This is the admitted...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.R. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj449
Mathur, J.1. These two appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act', arise out of the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.4.2001. The respondent Assessee M/s. A.R. Enterprises Private Limited, Udaipur is engaged in the business of drilling of tube-wells and construction activities. The respondent Assessee claimed investment allowance amounting to Rs. 5,24,885/- on purchase of drilling rigs, which was allowed in the original assessment passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 1985-86 by order dated 16.12.86, However, in absence of sufficient profit for that year, the same was carried forward and allowed to be set-off against the income of the assessment year 1987-88. The Supreme Court in a decision rendered on 7.3.1993 in C.I.T. v. N.C. Bhudhiraja (1), held that the investment allowance on drilling rigs is not allowable. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in N.C. Bhudhiraja's case (supra...
Tag this Judgment!Pania and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)16; 2002CriLJ3050; RLW2003(1)Raj440; 2002(3)WLN470
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 31.10.1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No. 63/85 (1 of 1983) by which he acquitted the accused appellants Pania for the offence under Sections 366, 323, 323/34 & 342 IPC, Jeevla for the offence under Sections 366, 323, 323/34 & 342 IPC and Kharta for the offence under Sections 366,323,323/34,342 & 376 IPC and also acquitted another accused Mst. Jamni for the offence under Section 368 read with 366 IPC, but convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 458 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 9 months RI.2. It arises in the following circumstances :-On 31.5.1982, PW-7 Mst. Geeta lodged a written report Ex.P/7 with the Police Station Sadri District Pali stating inter-alia that on 31.5.1982 at about 1.00 AM in the morning, her daughte...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd. Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj975
Mathur, J. 1. This reference application at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act has been filed seeking direction against the ITAT, Jaipur for referring following questions of law for the opinion of this Court :-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding in law that the expenditure of Rs. 35,207/- incurred for the purchase of T.V. set for the staff was a revenue expenditure?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the expenses of Rs. 1 lakh incurred by the assessee to get extension of mining lease was a revenue expenditure?' 2. The respondent assessee is a company carrying on the business of manufacturing and trading of processed lumps and powder etc. During the Assessment Year 1988-89 in response to a notice under Section 143(2) the company produced accounts and other required details. During the scrutiny, it reveal...
Tag this Judgment!Chhogmal Chiranji Lal and ors. Vs. Cit and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Raj)431
Bhagwati Prasad, J.The present batch of petitions involve identical questions of law and facts. In this background, they are decided by a common judgment. For factual matrix. details of the case of M/s Chhogmal Chiranji Lal v. CIT & Ors. are taken into consideration.2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in issuing the order Annexure-3 and Annexure-5. The orders impugned have been passed against the petitioner in the background that there were certain deposits with the petitioner and he was required to deduct income-tax on the payment of interest on such deposits. Section 201(1)(sic) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides that as and when such tax is paid on deposits, tax is required to be deducted at source. Such deduction is waived where recipient of interest, even after receiving the interest does not become a person, who is liable to pay tax and furnishes a Form No. 15H.This is the admitted position that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »